text:
Resume rules: Keep it simple, specific
Hey, all you college kids! It's time to get off your butts and start applying for jobs. Do not delude yourself into thinking you can wait until next May. Top internships, management training programs, entry-level investment banking jobs, and other good jobs get filled early. After all, employers are not stupid.
What are you going to do between now and June that will enhance your workplace value? For 99 percent of you, the answer is nothing. That's why the juiciest companies beat the rush and hire the best candidates before anyone else can get to them.
Based on my experience, I'd say a good rule of thumb is that you'll get one interview for every 50 resumes you send. That's if you're great. If you're not great, double that resume number.
And God help you if you don't have a decent resume.
Even if you're great, with a lame resume, your greatness will not show. Here are the three most important rules to ensure your resume measures up:
*One page. That's it. I don't care if you're the smartest person on earth or if you've founded six companies and sold each of them for a million dollars. Think of it this way. A resume gets only about 10 seconds to impress whoever's looking at it. So every line must say that you are amazing because you don't know where the person's eye will go first (though you can be sure the person won't read every line). People with resumes that exceed one page say, "I couldn't get it down to a page." But here's what a two-page resume says about you: "No ability to see the big picture." You are so mired in the details of your career that you don't know how to summarize it. This does not bode well for future career success. Cut your resume to one page.
*Every line must quantify success. A resume is not about what you did. A resume is about what you accomplished. Don't say: "Managed two people and created a tracking system for marketing." Say: "Managed the team that built a tracking system to decrease marketing costs 10 percent." Any college graduate can do what an employer says to do. Not everyone will do it well. Show that you're a person who does things well.
Think of it as the difference between writing, "Went to my classes and took tests" vs. "Have a 3.5 GPA." I know what you're going to say next: "I can't quantify my success. I didn't have those kind of jobs." You are wrong. Everyone has successes they can quantify. Let's say you had a babysitting job, which I hope not very many of you will have to put on your resume. But for the sake of argument, let's say you took care of two kids. You could write: "Managed household in parents' absence and helped kids to raise their grades one letter." Stupid, yes, but you need to make even stupid jobs sound only marginally stupid.
*No paragraphs. I shouldn't have to list this last rule because no one should still be using paragraphs on their resumes. But recent grads do it all the time. In fact, my friend who edits my website, and who's definitely very smart, showed me her resume, and I nearly died: all paragraphs.
No hiring manager reads paragraphs. With a stack of 500 resumes in front of her, she's scanning– looking for something that stands out enough to warrant an interview. Nothing stands out in a paragraph. So by using them, you take yourself out of the running– unless the hiring manager is your dad's best friend and he has to read your entire resume.
Most of you will say, "No paragraphs? Everyone knows that rule." Good for you: a confidence booster. You'll need it because it's a tough job market out there. Now start sending out resumes. Think of each one you send as a lottery ticket. The more you have, the luckier you'll feel.


text:
"Lake Monsters" Reportedly Photographed in Quebec and at Lake ChamplainFishermen's Observation Re-stirs Champ Debate
Published: Thursday, August 18, 2005
By Matt Crawford
Burlington Free Press Staff Writer
CHARLOTTE -- It's a flat, dead-calm summer evening on Lake Champlain, the kind of night when the water's surface looks like a gigantic mirror. Vermonters Dick Affolter and Pete Bodette, Affolter's 34-year-old stepson, are fishing for salmon just west of the mouth of the Ausable River on the New York side of the lake.
They're in Bodette's boat -- a 21-foot Bayliner Trophy -- and as the two experienced fishermen begin putting their lines in the water, they notice something on the surface, out some distance from them.
It's Monday night, July 11, and no other boats are in the area. At first, Affolter, a retired Essex attorney, thinks he's looking at a floating railroad tie. No, he realizes, it's too long. Maybe it's a tree trunk.
Then it moves, in a serpentine manner, they say, leaving a sizable wake -- a series of patterned ripples like corduroy -- on the smooth surface. The two fishermen know they are not looking at a railroad tie. Or a tree trunk.
But they don't know what it is. Later, when they see it again and capture digital images of it -- they know no more than before.
In the days following, as they talk to others and show their videos, the question emerges: Was it Champ?
Any unexplained, unique or unidentified sighting on Lake Champlain, of course, brings to the fore the legend of Champ -- the mythical Lake Champlain creature that has been subject of debate and speculation for almost 400 years.
Some people have photographed what they claim to be Champ, and in 2003 a team of scientists recorded a series of high-frequency sounds similar to those made by sea mammals coming from the lake's depths. But the presence of a large marine animal unique to Lake Champlain is more folklore than fact.
Affolter and Bodette do not claim that they saw Champ.
"We saw something on that lake we've never seen before," Bodette said. "Is what we saw the same thing other people saw, and they called Champ? I don't know."
When the pair first noticed something on the lake's surface, Bodette and Affolter thought it was a fish.
"I said to Dick, 'Just troll over to that thing,'" said Bo- dette, a Charlotte resident. "As a joke I said, 'Watch that thing take off when we get close to it.' Sure enough, we got to about 20 or 30 yards and it just slowly submerged."
|Story 2: Quebecer Claims to Have Photos of Lake Monster
CTV.ca News Staff
A Quebec innkeeper claims to have picture proof that the legendary monster of Lake Massawippi exists.
Although it doesn't enjoy the status of Ogopogo -- the country's most famous water monster said to inhabit Lake Okanagan in the south central B.C. interior -- "Whippy" has been alive in local monster folklore.
Townspeople have been reporting sightings of the elusive creature for generations in the peaceful, picturesque lake nestled in Quebec's Eastern Townships, near Sherbrooke.
Jeff Stafford, owner of the Ripplecove Inn, showed photos of what he claimed are "Whippy" to CFCF News reporter Rob Lurie.
Stafford said he was given the photos last week by a tourist, along with a story of how the alligator-like creature surfaced from the depths of the Massawippi and treated him to an extended view.
The series of blurry photos show a far shot of an oddly-shaped protuberance sticking out of the water.
"This thing was floating on top like a large crocodile or large water snake," Stafford told CFCF. He said, according to the tourist, that Whippy was 10 feet long, and had its head stuck out of the water for several minutes.
"We were blown away," said Stafford, who didn't doubt the tourist's story for one second.
There are many stories of monster sightings in these parts, reports Lurie. Nearby Lake Mephremagog has "Memphre"; Lake Champlains' has "Champ."
But with this latest sighting on the Massawippi, the legend of Whippy has pulled ahead of the others. Florent Hebert, who's been guiding tours on the lake for 23 years, said he's seen a lot of strange things that he just can't explain.
He said he's been trying to convince people of Whippy's existence, and that these photos finally prove he's not crazy.
"I feel much better, because no one believes in the stories I've been telling about the lake," he told CFCF News.
Scientists have explained that these waters are inhabited by some very large fish. At almost 500 feet deep, Lake Massawippi is home to many monster sturgeons. Fishermen have spotted fish more than seven feet long in the lake.
Vancouver author John Kirk, whose specialty is investigating unknown animals, guesses the mystery creature in Stafford's photo "could be a form of catfish."
"But it doesn't have the profile to be a classical lake monster," he told CTV News.
Stafford said whatever it was, it didn't act very fish-like. "It was on the surface of the water for about 15 minutes -- that's not fish behavior," he said.
With a report from CTV's Rob Lurie
Bodette remembers telling Affolter, and maybe he dropped a cuss word in there: "That's a humongous fish. Humongous."
The two seasoned anglers could not identify what species of fish it might have been -- especially one they estimated to be 15 feet long that was breaking the surface where the lake is close to 200 feet deep.
They continued to fish for salmon. A half-hour later, maybe more, they saw activity on the surface again. This time Affolter piloted the Bayliner close enough for Bodette to use his Canon digital camera. Bodette snapped pictures and recorded several short movies. He saved the images on his home computer, naming the files various versions of "Pete's Serpent."
The digital recordings clearly show something of significant size moving just under the surface. It does not appear to be a boat wake or a school of fish or cormorants. In one frame it almost looks as if the head of an alligator-like animal breaks the surface, the setting sun reflecting off what could be an eye.
In the short digital movies, which were shown to a reporter and editor, the camera zooms in and out of focus at one point and Bodette can be heard asking Affolter: "What in hell is that thing?"
More Lore
The modern legend of the lake creature known as Champ dates back to 1609 when French explorer Samuel de Champlain described a fish with "dangerous teeth" that the native peoples said grew to 10 feet in length. Champlain might have been describing a gar, but his shortcomings as a naturalist laid the foundation for hundreds of years of second-guessing.
Strange sightings on the lake can be written off as a number of unusual natural phenomena -- from large lake sturgeon basking on the surface, to a school of large fish chasing bait, to a family of otters swimming.
Yet throughout the years, hundreds of people -- boaters, picnickers, swimmers -- claim to have spotted Champ. Some snapped photographs of what they saw, some relayed their stories to the newspapers.
In the late 1800s, showman P.T. Barnum penned a letter to a small New York newspaper on the south end of the lake offering a $50,000 reward for hide of the "Great Champlain sea serpent." The Burlington Free Press has reported creature sightings throughout the years, often running the accounts in daily coverage.
One of the most famous sightings took place in 1977 when New Hampshire's Sandra Mansi, spending a day on the lakeshore with her family near St. Albans, snapped a photograph that seems to show something emerging from the water. In 1992, NBC television ran a Champ story on its then-popular television show "Unsolved Mysteries," using Mansi's photograph in the discussion.
Another sighting was reported this week: WCAX-TV aired a story about a 75-year old man near Vergennes who reportedly took a recent picture of a creature on the surface of Lake Champlain.
Science Weighs In
Steve Smith, director of facilities at ECHO at the Leahy Center for Lake Champlain, has seen Bodette's and Affolter's digital images.
"I don't know what it is," Smith said. "The majority of the video is very indiscernible. In one frame, he seems to feel there's an eye coming out of the water, but to me, I thought I was looking at an otter's nose. I've never seen anything that definitively proves the existence of Champ, and that video doesn't, either."
Affolter dismisses the otter theory: "It looks, maybe, like a big otter ... if an otter was 15 feet long."
Bodette's story made its way to Elizabeth von Muggenthaler, a former Charlotte resident living in Hillsborough, N.C., where she's president of Fauna Communication Institute, a firm that studies how animals communicate.
In 2003, von Muggenthaler spent nearly a week on Champlain for the Discovery Channel, searching for Champ with highly sensitive sonar equipment.
The crew of scientists recorded a series of rapid, high-frequency clicks and ticks that sounds whale- or dolphin-like to the trained ear. The pitch was seven times out of the range of the human ear, von Muggenthaller said, and cannot be attributed to any fish species in Champlain.
The equipment von Muggenthaler's crew used two summers ago determined the creature that emitted the high frequency sound was 15 feet long.
The 2003 recording of the sounds has been reviewed and scrutinized by other acoustic scientists, von Muggenthaler said. Von Muggenthaler, who arrived in Vermont last week, has seen Bodette's video and pictures.
She can't say with certainty that this is the creature she heard in 2003, but in her mind the sounds she recorded that summer and these images captured by a fisherman are linked.
"Clearly," von Muggenthaler said, "this deserves serious investigation."
Mary Watzin, director of the University of Vermont's Rubenstein Ecosystem Science Laboratory, said to her knowledge UVM researchers haven't seriously studied the Champ phenomenon. With the right hypothesis, Watzin said, perhaps Champ would be deserving of further inspection.
"I'm always open to the possibility of seeing something new on that lake," Watzin said. "I'm very skeptical of the theory there is some long-lost dinosaur swimming around, but I'm certainly open to the idea there's something we haven't seen out there."
In the past few weeks von Muggenthaler and Bodette have been approached by the Travel Channel for a show about sea monsters. A California-based production company offered money for the film, but Bodette turned it down after he saw where the television show was going.
"This just doesn't belong in the same category as crop circles or a Sasquatch sighting," von Muggenthaler said. "It needs to be treated as real. You don't want to minimize the scientific importance of this."
Contact Matt Crawford at 651-4852 or email@example.com Champ consortium
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31
Please Support the Research of S8int.com!
Since 2002, Chris Parker has done the majority of the research and writing of articles for s8int.com. If this site has been an encouragement to you, please donate to support Chris's ongoing research. (S8int.com is not incorporated and your donations may not be tax deductable.)

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Free Coupon Database Updated: September 22, 2020
Start Saving Today & Get Free Coupons on Products You Use Everyday
"Print Sunday Coupons"
Access 1000's Of Coupons And Save More Money At Local Cambridge,MA Stores
"I have been using your coupons and offers for a few months now and the savings are really helpful, Thank you!" - Cindy A, mother of 5
Find Printable Grocery Coupons at Merchants Including:
- Printable Coupons from over 2,500 top brands!
- Coupons & Discounts on all your grocery needs!
- Free Membership, over 7 million members
- The best prices up to 30% cash back, coupons and free shipping!
- Excellent customer service, in business since 1989.
CouponingHub.com is your top source for Free Printable Grocery Coupons and botticelli olive oil. Coupons from 1,000's of top grocery brand names ready for you to access instantly. Coupons easily accessible so you can use them today & start saving! You can also access a wide range of online coupons so you can save instantly. Coupons include local neighborhood coupons, grocery coupons and online coupons to name just a few. Save money on grocery shopping every week with our printable grocery coupons! We are constantly adding coupons in order to keep our database fresh and up to date. Coupons are our business and we always encourage your feedback. If you would like to see any coupons and botticelli olive oil added please let us know and we will do our best to post them for you. Please feel free to contact us with comments and/or suggestions regarding the coupon availability & selection. Your satisfaction is guaranteed, just enter your email address to download the coupons toolbar on the next page. Once you have done so and created your free account you can start searching through thousands of coupons to start saving money. Also, feel free to take advantage of the other free promotions and botticelli olive oil currently offered on this page.


text:
A collection of scholarly works about individual liberty and free markets. A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.
Vorlesungen ueber Nationaloekonomie auf Grundlage des Marginalprinzipes. Vol. 2 Theoretischer Teil, Geld und Kredit vom Verfasser durchgesehene Uebersetzung von Margarethe Langfeldt (Jena: Gustav Fischer, 1922). Vol. 2. https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1468,
|Available in the following formats:
|Facsimile PDF
|This is a facsimile or image-based PDF made from scans of the original book.
|Facsimile PDF small
|This is a compressed facsimile or image-based PDF made from scans of the original book.
Volume 2 of a two volume set of lectures given by Wicksell. He bases his ideas on the idea of the marginal principle and covers topics such as money, credit, and banking. It is in German.
The text is in the public domain.
This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.


text:
Thanks: 0
Results 1 to 15 of 15
Thread: Bad, Worse, ****!!!!
Bad, Worse, ****!!!!
Just came across this and whanted to share.... Sorce : http://www.somethingawful.com/
Bad - You have a one night stand with a girl and wake up the next morning and discover you've got a burning rash covering your penis.
Worse - The girl turns out to be your sister.
****! - Who you picked up from an IRC room where she was posing as a 16 year old girl for an FBI sting operation.
Bad - You get caught playing Minesweeper one time too many by the boss and get your pink slip.
Worse - Your pink slip consists of being thrown through a plate glass window by your boss.
****! - From the eightieth floor of an office building located on top of an active volcano.
Bad - You get pulled over for doing 90 in a school zone and you're drunk off your *** again at three in the afternoon.
Worse - The cop is drunk too, and he's a mean drunk.
****! - A mean drunk that's actually a swarm of semi-sentient flesh-eating beetles.
Bad - While out on a date you decide to go to a Mexican restaurant and the burrito beats you in a race to the bathroom.
Worse - The burrito had bet money on the race.
****! - And he has a lot of taco friends willing to take that money out of your *** if you don't pay up.
Bad - Maverick, pull up! There's a MiG on your six!
Worse - Maverick, pull out! Your mom's home from the grocery store!
****! - Maverick, pull straws! The man with the short one gets to massage Dr. Phil's taint!
Bad - The mob has put a hit out on you for ratting on the don.
Worse - The yakuza has put out a call for your severed head for having sex with the boss's wife.
****! - Bill Cosby has put up a reward for your capture so he can suck the delicious Jello pudding that fills your bones instead of marrow.
Bad - You're addicted to the Internet.
Worse - Especially FARK.
****! - Because you laugh every single time you read the phrase "France Surrenders!"
Bad - Your rent check just bounced.
Worse - Because you bought an entire shipping pallet of dildos.
****! - That got delivered to your landlord's apartment on accident.
Bad - The factory that employed almost half of your town just shut down.
Worse - By "shut down" I mean "burned down with everyone inside".
****! - By "factory" I mean "unshielded nuclear reactor".
Next one is MY favorit
Bad - The MPAA files a lawsuit against you for downloading a theatrical screener.
Worse - It was a VCD of "Gigli"
****! - That you actually got to work in your DVD player.
Bad - Your girlfriend breaks up with you for petty reasons and then immediately starts dating.
Worse - Your father.
****! - Who insists you call her "mom".
Bad - Your dog gets run over by a speeding car.
Worse - Your dog was actually a super intelligent fox.
****! - A kindly white-bearded gnome was riding on its back when the car struck.
Bad - You lose all of your money in Las Vegas.
Worse - It was inside your wallet at the time.
****! - You have a sinking suspicion you may have left it in that hotel room where you murdered the hooker.
Bad - You write erotic "Dukes of Hazzard" fan fiction.
Worse - About Bo and Luke asphyxiating each other during gay sex.
****! - And you accidentally turn it in as an assignment at parochial school.
Bad - You fatally shoot your best friend while showing him your new gun.
Worse - He was the President of the United States.
****! - And he was standing on your new Berber carpet.
Bad - Videotapes of you having sex were leaked onto the Internet.
Worse - The videos were shot using night vision making you look like some sort of hideous alien creature.
****! - Your career still consists of appearing on "Wild On!" and being interviewed incoherently by Jules Asner while dry humping anything within reach because of the overdose of ecstasy you took poolside earlier.
Bad - While enjoying your lunch you find a human finger in your bowl of soup.
Worse - It's your finger.
****! - It's still attached to the body of a man who is considering a job at Burger King because his Bachelor's degree in computer science isn't worth the paper it's printed on anymore.
Bad - You still haven't beaten "Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic".
Worse - You're stuck on the first fight with Calo Nord.
****! - Because you burned out your retinas staring at the sun and can no longer differentiate shapes.
Bad - Your infant son dies from starvation because you were playing Everquest nonstop.
Worse - You only find the body when emptying your improvised colostomy bag.
****! - You abandon flushing his corpse down the toilet halfway through the process because you hear the sound of your character being attacked from the other room.
Bad - Your most prized possession is destroyed in an unfortunate accident.
Worse - The accident involved a tribe of cannibals.
****! - Your most prized possession was your artificial hip.
Bad - You develop stigmata.
Worse - You work in a lemonade factory.
****! - You're not even Christian.
Bad - Your neighbors call the police and complain about the loud noise coming from a party you're having.
Worse - The party is actually a cover for you to deal heroin out of your bedroom.
****! - The music was actually turned up to conceal the sounds of you being shot to death by rival drug dealers.
Bad - You write for a humor web site.
Worse - You run out of ideas so frequently that you have to rely on "bad and worse" as your concept for an article.
****! - And it actually seemed like a good idea at the time.
Fed7haSShe's just too pretty for Hollywood. I don't know, put her in a glass box and display her at the Metropolitan Museum of Art or something. - Jake on the topic of Scarlett Johansson.
- Join Date
- Sep 2001
- Location
- No place like 127.0.0.1
- Posts
- 1,400
- Credits
- 1,102
fair enough....
bad: some were funny ..
worse: some were stupid..
[My Top 20 Movies@Ymdb] - ([)(]) Dolby Digital the choice of ML's - [~My Place ~]
{Drag The Sunrise Down: You know the light can hypnotise, so shut it out and close your eyes - Rooster}
Originally posted by Stormwalker
bad: some were funny ..
worse: some were stupid..
"The idea was to be a symbol. editman could be anybody, that was the point."
Trolls destroyed the Forum
my DVD/blu-ray List
i realy think i started out ok on this forum.... but some how i managed to piss off editman.... i wonder how that happend.. Hmmmm.....
Possibly, because you've done 95 posts in a month and a half and he's worried you're gonna become like me, which some might say is not a bad thing...
Not funny. Apart from the Gigli one.
hehe i know they wasent all funny but some was and i just whanted to shere.... but if this is sutch a big deal and it is considerd spam i whont do it again.... sorry...
Hey, posting something if you think the other forumites might like it isn't spamming. It's using emocon only replies or going off topic.
sorry but i have to ask what is a emocon?
emotion icon as in smiley
Originally posted by I Got Trailers
Hey, posting something if you think the other forumites might like it isn't spamming. It's using emocon only replies or going off topic."A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism." / Carl Sagan
Mygod...Everyone calls me spammer and I'm nearly leaving this forum for some time because of the "spammer" image. Got to go to my punching bag (I broken my squeezy stress ball).
well wouldent the removal of post count remove the spamming thing? like whats the point of a post count anyways... ? is it like..
The bigger your Post Count the bigger your penis is?
Never mind.... i will in the future only awnser threads not make em
11-16-2003, 09:41 PM #15Originally posted by Dr.FrankNFurter
well wouldent the removal of post count remove the spamming thing? like whats the point of a post count anyways... ? is it like..
The bigger your Post Count the bigger your penis is?
Never mind.... i will in the future only awnser threads not make em
Size, I mean count matters
Similar Threads
Bad Boys IIBy carl in forum General Chatter - Movie RelatedReplies: 3Last Post: 10-13-2003, 09:50 AM
Interview QT Videos - Bad Boys II, Tomb Raider II, How to DealBy Rufus in forum Movie NewsReplies: 2Last Post: 07-30-2003, 12:02 PM
Bad Boys 2/Matrix sequels plot details!?!By trailergod in forum Movie NewsReplies: 2Last Post: 06-15-2002, 03:25 PM


text:
|With my eternal life, I shall see the world through to its end. Until everyone who won't like me is gone.
|~ Porky Minch in Mother 3.
Porky Minch (also known as "Pokey" due in part to a translation error) is the secondary antagonist of EarthBound and the main antagonist of Mother 3.
His first appearance in EarthBound displays him as the cowardly, yet, incredibly obnoxious next door neighbor to Ness, the protagonist of the story, who he later confronts from time to time throughout the whole game, constantly being a thorn on his side. As the story progresses, so does Porky in power, extending from a high priest of Carpainter's Happy Happist cult, to Monotoli's adviser, then to become Giygas' right hand man, and quite possibly even be the more superior during the final boss battle. In Mother 3, he becomes the nefarious king of the vast Pigmask Army and the Nowhere Islands.
Role in the Games
After a meteor strikes on a hilltop in the small town of Onett in the middle of the night, Porky investigates the site, only coming up short as the police will not let him. After telling Ness to stop "rubbernecking", he returns home, only to be woken up by Porky's desperate knocking. After confessing that he had lost his younger brother, Picky, near the site, he pleads for help from Ness to find him before his parents come home.
Once they find him, an insect named Buzz Buzz appears from the meteor and tells them that a great evil is coming, and that a group of heroes will save the world, Porky convincing himself that he isn't one of them. After fighting a Starman, Ness returns Porky and Picky home and he isn't seen for a while.
Porky is next seen as the high priest of the Happy Happyist Cult led by Carpainter, kidnapping Paula for a human sacrifice. When the cult is disbanded, he and his father become business consultants for Geldegarde Monotoli in Fourside, causing even more trouble for the heroes. When confronted by Ness, Porky escapes in Monotoli's helicopter and crashes in Deep Darkness, again disappearing for a while. He is finally seen in the Cave of the Past alongside Giygas itself, fighting inside a spider-mecha (identified as "Heavily Armed Pokey").
In the final moments, he releases Giygas from the Devil's Machine, but Paula's prayers destroy the evil force once and for all, forcing Porky to escape through time. His last message in the epilogue of the game came as a taunting letter to Ness from Picky saying "Come and get me, loser! Spankety, spankety, spankety!".
Mother 3
In Mother 3, Porky returns as the king of the vast Pigmask Army, a whole army of brainwashed soldiers with pig-shaped masks and the undeniable tyrant of the Nowhere Islands. While he is not introduced in name until the final chapter of the game, Chapter 8, his presence is noticeable in the first chapter by the introduction of the Pigmasks, terrorizing Sunshine Forest of Tazmily Village, the home of the main protagonist, Lucas. Throughout the whole game, the Pigmasks have spread their influence across the Nowhere Islands, modernizing the land to the point in Chapter 7 where it is mostly ubiquitous. In addition to kidnapping the soldiers from various time periods, he kidnapped Dr. Andonuts, from the time of EarthBound, to construct his machines and weaponry in the Chimera Labs, creating the grotesque animals called "chimeras" that are found all throughout the game, and also tricking the Tazmilly Villagers into becoming new soldiers for his army and new citizens of New Pork City while also loving him unconditionally as their rightful ruler with the usage of Happy Boxes and the "Nice Person Hot Spring", brainwashing devices that come into play later in the game.
After Lucas' mother, Hinawa, dies from a Mecha Drago, a chimera made by the Pigmasks, his brother, Claus, goes missing, attempting to avenge his mother, failing miserably. The Pigmasks would later find his body and brainwash him into becoming their general, in pursuit to pull the Seven Needles to awake the Dark Dragon and destroy the world (or rather, reset it to Porky's image). In Chapter 8, it is revealed that Porky was the mastermind behind all these incidents, and the race to pull the Seven Needles would be directed to his city, New Pork City for the heroes.
Up to this point, all of the Tazmily Villagers have moved in to New Pork City, while Porky awaits Lucas and company in the Empire Porky Building for the grand finale to pull the last and final needle. After repeatedly taunting the heroes to precede to the 100th and final floor in the building, they finally meet the unseen dictator. Descending down the vines of the final floor, it is clearly evident he has changed a considerable amount from his last appearance in EarthBound. He is expressed in game as coughing, wheezing, and gasping throughout his whole speech to the heroes, possibly due to of his extreme amounts of time-travel. His body aged into a fragile, old man, while still keeping his twisted childhood mentality, albeit warped due to the extreme amount of year spent time traveling, back from EarthBound. He confesses that all of the actions laid out to Tazmily Village, and to the Nowhere Islands, were all out of sheer boredom and also due in part to it would "be more thrilling". He then transports the heroes to the final showdown, under the Empire Porky Building via a trap door.
Lucas and company continued their journey underground, until Porky appeared and blocked the way, resulting in a final showdown. during the battle, he professed his goal is to remove all life from the world, leaving only the Dark Dragon and himself. Porky then assured his foes that even if the Dark Dragon were to destroy everything else, his immortality would allow him to see it all through. After his mech ran out of power, Porky decided to isolate himself inside the Absolutely Safe Capsule; a giant capsule specifically designed to be absolutely safe. However, he forgot that the capsule's creator, Dr. Andonuts, told him not to use it yet, as once the capsule is sealed shut it can never be opened again, thus forever trapping Porky inside it, unable to leave, unable to die, and unable to accept defeat.
According to Dr. Andonuts, the eternally sealed aspect of the capsule is to not only protect the occupant from the world, but to protect the world from the occupants.
Super Smash Bros. Brawl
In Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Porky is a boss fought in the Ruined Zoo stage after escaping his Pig King Statue. After Lucas escapes, Ness appears and destroys it with a PK Flash. Porky then appears from inside the statue and attacks using his bed mecha (to which he is bond by a glass vial, presumably the Capsule). His attacks involve a multiple stab with his mechanic claws, many kinds of lasers, and Mecha-Porkies that detonate with proximity. Even though he keeps his pace, both ultimately defeat Porky, whose mecha falls to the ground in malfunction. He returns in the Great Maze area, where he must be fought again to open the door to Tabuu. It is unknown if Porky is working for the Subspace Army, but it is said by many sources that he is actually a general under Tabuu.
While his whole personality may be just one big theory, he has a few characteristics that can be pinned down anyway. In his first appearance in EarthBound, it is clearly evident that he would be a nuisance, even later in the game for the heroes. But once the Mani Mani statue intervenes, which is the corrupting and evil influence of Giygas, he became much more insidious and troublesome (not to mention more irritating) to the heroes as the story progresses, taunting every step in the way. Be it either from temptation and opportunity or from the corruption of the Mani Mani statue, he gets more malicious and malevolent, to the point where he is serving, or even controlling, Giygas in the final boss battle to destroy the heroes once and for all. After disappearing for the last and final time in EarthBound, he states that he and Ness will meet again, adding in a "So now which one of us do you think is the cool guy?!", giving a sort of insecurity vibe.
In Mother 3, aged from the conspicuous amounts of time-traveling, he kept his immature mentality while also having the experience of an old man, abandoning any possibility of forgiveness and accepting his evil fate. As if he hadn't gone mad at the end of EarthBound, he has gone even more insane in Mother 3, to the point where he laughs like a madman in every dialogue he utters. When he isolated himself in the capsule, Porky apparently still believed that he'd win, as when you examine Porky during the end, it says that it "wobbles with glee".
It is unclear whether or not Giygas or Porky is in charge during the boss fight with the two. While Porky does seem to have the upper hand when turning off the Devil's Machine and driving Giygas to the point of irrationality, we're not sure if this was intentional. For all we know, it couldn't have been.
It is also unclear whether or not he has been corrupted by the Mani Mani statue since the start of the game or not. If he wasn't, he became willfully evil a his own expense. If so, the trilogy would then make him out as a tragic villain, as it already does more so in Mother 3 than in EarthBound.
Given very little to no backstory before the start of EarthBound, we can only infer whether or not Porky's parents set him off toward the path to evil. It is evident that abuse does happen in his household, but the player can take it either comically, as in slapstick, or something more serious. Even the creator does take note of this, stating in an interview that "he has pretty bad parents". But why his younger brother didn't turn evil is anyone's guess.
Even though it is incredibly vague as to whether or not he and Ness were in anyway friends, there are subtle hints in both EarthBound and Mother 3 that Porky did think he was, in a odd kind of way, whether it be from the references to Ness' adventure in EarthBound, to the fake apparel and weaponry used by him in New pork City or to even the "precious" Friend's Yoyo in his playroom; as though he was worshiping him in a sense.
In Earthbound, in Ness' Magicant, the realm inside his mind, as the game states, Ness believed that Porky's actions before the confrontation with Giygas, was due in part of him being envious of Ness the whole time.
|Well no matter. The curtain is about to fall on this pathetic little play of yours. Because soon, the power of power will be mine. The world and everything in it has been my oyster so far, and now I'll end it all by acquiring the ultimate power. Heheheh heheh. Aha ahahaha ahahahahahaha. *cough* *cough* *cough* *cough* *gasp* *gasp* *gasp* *gasp* Whew ... Though everything so far has been fun and games, I've given you many a concession. I was bored out of my mind and wanted to play something more thrilling, you see. But now that we're face-to-face like this, I won't hold anything back. My slave... my lifeless son will pull the final Needles for me. And, the moment he does, the Dragon should awaken and do as I want. At which time, I assume you fools will turn into garbage or dust or something and finally disappear for good. Ahahaha... I'll admit, that is kind of sad. But I would be crushed under the weight of boredom if it were any other way. *wheeze* *wheeze* *wheeze* *gasp* *gasp* *gasp* *gasp* Do you understand now? Do you understand the sadness Master Porky bears, now that he is god-like? Ahahaha aha ahahahaha. *cough* *cough* *cough* *cough* *cough*
|~ Porky taunting Lucas and Co. in Mother 3.
|I was the one who brought you here. A traveler who has journeyed to and from past and future. I'm the most clever, most charming, and most trouble-making boy ever... Master Porky Minch! I welcome you once again, you weak hangers-on pretending to be the last survivors of this world! Spankety, spankety, spankety! Ahahahahaha!
|~ Porky Minch introducing himself before making his speech to the Tazmily Villagers in the 100th floor of the Empire Porky Building.
|I've gone through time and space so many times that I haven't aged like a normal person. Who knows, I might be 1,000 years old, or even 10,000 years old. But, despite that, I'm still the same kid at heart! Is that funny? It is, isn't it? Does it make you laugh? *cough* *wheeze* Are you laughing at me?!
|~ Porky Minch during the MOTHER 3 boss fight, clearly showing that he has gone insane.
- It was stated by his creator, Shigesato Itoi, that even if the world comes to an end, Porky would still survive inside the Absolutely Safety Capsule.
- When defeated in Super Smash Bros. Brawl, the sound he makes when the final hit is dealt is similar to the Ultimate Chimera's roar.
- In Mother 3, Porky is clearly seen aged and old (he states that he is maybe around 1,000 or 10,000 years old or even older), but in Super Smash Bros. Brawl, he looks a lot younger than in the original game if one observes the capsule, though he still has white facial hair and pale skin.
- The battle against him in "Mother 3" is very similar to that of Giygas, as the move is indescribable.
- Porky has a lot of similarities to Napoleon from Animal Farm. Both were originally allies to their team mates but were cowards during the battle when they were supposed to help their friends, both become selfish greedy dictators, both made numerous images of themselves in their empire, both are fat, both constantly insult a protagonist (Porky teases Ness while Napoleon slanders Snowball), Porky's name is associated with pigs which is Napoleon's species, they both get what they want (Napoleon rules the farm in the book and Porky enjoys being trapped forever in the Absolutely Safe Capsule) and they were pawns of an evil dictator (Napoleon was originally a pawn for Mr Jones and Porky was a pawn for Giygas).
- Porky is often considered to be one of the most evil Nintendo villains. At the beginning of Earthbound he seemed as if he might have any redeemable qualities, and just a foolish boy who was somewhat selfish and cowardly. However, he becomes more villainous as the game goes on and by the end even releases Giygas to devour his neighbor Ness and his friends. In Mother 3, he stops at nothing to antagonize Lucas who has already suffered the loss of his mother, which was also Porky's fault.


text:
The first two books, which the New Yorker author clearly has more sympathy with, are Why Have Children?: The Ethical Debate by Christine Overall and Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming Into Existence by David Benatar.
Overall, who teaches philosophy at Queen's University, in Ontario, dismisses the notion that childbearing is "natural" and therefore needs no justification. "There are many urges apparently arising from our biological nature that we nonetheless should choose not to act upon," she observes. If we're going to keep having kids, we ought to be able to come up with a reason.Apparently Overall then goes on to examine and reject other arguments as to why one should have children.
Of course, people do give reasons for having children, and Overall takes them up one by one. Consider the claim that having a child benefits the child. This might seem self-evident. After all, a child deprived, through some Knowltonian means, of coming into existence, loses everything. She can never experience any of the pleasures life has to offer—eating ice cream, say, or riding a bike, or, for the more forward-thinking parents among us, having sex.
Overall rejects this argument on two grounds. First of all, nonexistent people have no moral standing. (There are an infinite number of nonexistent people out there, and you don't notice them complaining, do you?) Second, once you accept that you should have a baby in order to increase the world's total happiness, how do you know when to stop?
I think this goes off the rails pretty much at the get-go, where she argues that having children is not natural and thus needs some sort of justification. Given that we, as a species, are designed to reproduce and can only continue to exist by reproducing, it seems odd to assert that we need to come up with a rigorous justification for reproducing or else refrain. Yes, it's true that there are many "urges apparently arising from our biological nature" which we shouldn't act upon, but there are also urges resulting from our biological nature which we must act upon unless we are making an active choice for suicide. I have an biological urge to consume food. I may (wisely) choose not to eat all the time, or not to eat some given thing, but if I refuse to eat at all, I'll end up dying after a while.
Now clearly, any given person is not obliged to reproduce. Unlike eating, the individual can thrive without producing offspring, and that may well be the calling of some people. However, the species as a whole cannot exist without many of its members reproducing, and given that it seems a little odd to me to insist that none of us should do so unless we can come up with a really good reason to. Unless, of course, we think that it's better that we go extinct. Interestingly, this is exactly what David Benatar believes:
The volume is dedicated to his parents, "even though they brought me into existence," and to his brothers, "each of whose existence, although a harm to him, is a great benefit to the rest of us." (It's fun to imagine what family reunions with the Benatars are like.)People sometimes wonder why this blog is called "DarwinCatholic", and the answer is pretty much that last line: Those who have a philosophy of life which opposes reproduction are unlikely to pass on their view, while those whose philosophy provides a reason to foster family life will thrive.
Benatar's case rests on a critical but, in his view, unappreciated asymmetry. Consider two couples, the A's and the B's. The A's are young, healthy, and rich. If they had children, they could give them the best of everything—schools, clothes, electronic gaming devices. Even so, we would not say that the A's have a moral obligation to reproduce.
The B's are just as young and rich. But both have a genetic disease, and, were they to have a child together, that child would suffer terribly. We would say, using Benatar's logic, that the B's have an ethical obligation not to procreate.
The case of the A's and the B's shows that we regard pleasure and pain differently. Pleasure missed out on by the nonexistent doesn't count as a harm. Yet suffering avoided counts as a good, even when the recipient is a nonexistent one.
And what holds for the A's and the B's is basically true for everyone. Even the best of all possible lives consists of a mixture of pleasure and pain. Had the pleasure been forgone—that is, had the life never been created—no one would have been the worse for it. But the world is worse off because of the suffering brought needlessly into it.
"One of the implications of my argument is that a life filled with good and containing only the most minute quantity of bad—a life of utter bliss adulterated only by the pain of a single pin-prick—is worse than no life at all," Benatar writes.
He acknowledges that many readers will have difficulty accepting such a "deeply unsettling claim." They will say that they consider their own existence to be a blessing, and that the same goes for their children's. But they're only kidding themselves. And no wonder. Everyone alive today is descended from a long line of people who did reproduce themselves. Evolution thus favors a kind of genetically encoded Pollyannaism. "Those with reproduction-enhancing beliefs are more likely to breed and pass on whatever attributes incline one to such beliefs," Benatar notes.
In this regard, the third book reviewed in the article is a bit off on its own, Bryan Caplan's Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids: Why Being a Great Parent is Less Work and More Fun Than You Think is one that I've been curious to read for a while, but it sidesteps more philosophical questions to focus on the practical (perhaps typically, given that Caplan is an economist).
According to Caplan, a professor at George Mason University, the major mistake that parents (or prospective parents) make is overvaluing the present. This is a common enough error. Workers in their twenties and thirties don't save enough money for retirement because it seems such a long way off. Then their sixties roll around, and they wish they'd spent less on S.U.V.s and HDTVs and put more into their 401(k)s.Actually, it strikes me that Caplan's rationale has a built in cut-off feature: If the world were such that it seemed clear that having children would not add to one's happiness at any point, then the conclusion one would reach from his argument would still be not to reproduce.
Couples, he argues, need to think not just about how many children they might want now, when they have better things to do than microwave Similac, but how many they will want to have around when they're old and lonely and watching "The View." Caplan recommends what he calls the "take the average" rule:
Suppose you're thirty. Selfishly speaking, you conclude that the most pleasant number of children to have during your thirties is one. During your forties, your optimal number of kids will rise to two—you'll have more free time as your kids assert their independence. By the time you're in your fifties, all your kids will be busy with their own lives. At this stage, wouldn't it be nice to have four kids who periodically drop by? Finally, once you pass sixty and prepare to retire, you'll have ample free time to spend with your grandchildren. Five kids would be a good insurance policy against grandchildlessness.
Caplan does the math and concludes that in this case "the best number of kids is three."
Although the figure may vary from one family to another, the same calculation, Caplan argues, applies across the board. Kids are a pain in the ass when they're small. They require lots of care just at the time their parents tend to be busiest establishing themselves in their careers. As a result, most people stop producing children before they've reached the number that would, over the long haul, maximize their self-interest. "Typical parental feelings paired with high foresight imply more kids than typical parental feelings paired with moderate foresight," Caplan writes. (Unfortunately, he does not explain what parents should do if their ideal number of children includes a fraction.)
Caplan concedes that some may feel compunction about having more (or any) children when they are already short on time and resources. Wouldn't it be better to provide one or two children with a decent upbringing than to give three or four a lousy one? Here the good news, according to Caplan, is: it doesn't matter. He cites a variety of twin and adoption studies showing that genetics swamps parenting on traits ranging from children's health and intelligence to their chances of going to prison. There's no need to monitor a kid's French-fries consumption, or ferry him to music lessons, or teach him to avoid felony charges. As long as you "don't lock him in a closet," he'll be O.K. Or not, as the case may be.
Parents who realize just how little difference hard work makes will work less hard. This should, in effect, drive down the cost of procreation and, by the logic of the marketplace, increase its appeal. "If kids are the product, consumer logic still applies: Buy more as the deal gets sweeter," Caplan writes. At the very least, the additional kids will provide the world with more consumers and more labor: "Many think there's no place for unskilled workers in the high-tech economy of the future, but someone has to do their jobs."
Benatar's child-rearing advice, if followed, would result in human extinction. Caplan's leads in the opposite direction: toward a never-ending population boom. He declares this to be one of his scheme's advantages: "More people mean more ideas, the fuel of progress." In a work that's full of upbeat pronouncements, this is probably his most optimistic, or, if you prefer, outrageous claim.
As I say, I'm mildly curious to read Caplan's book (which is more than I can say for the other two) in that he's a personality I find mildly interesting online. However, it does strike me that he doesn't really articulate any kind of a philosophy that explains why reproduction is a good -- he simply assumes that you at root understand this (having children will make you happy) and then encourages you not to make to it too hard for yourself and also to consider long term happiness above short term. At a pragmatic level, this may make a fair amount of sense, and as I said above, I don't think one must abstain from being fruitful and multiplying unless one can rigorously prove a justification for it, but generally speaking people do want to have some sort of comprehensive philosophy which explains why they should do difficult things, and Caplan doesn't so much provide that as assure you it's not really that hard.


text:
Chlorination is probably the most common method of treating microorganisms in water. This method is mainly used by water utility companies in order to kill microorganisms in water right from the water production site up to the consumers water tap.
Water treatment against microorganisms is very important especially when the water is supplied from lakes and rivers etc. Rivers and lakes may contain high levels of pathogens as a result from inadequately treated sewage discharges or non treated discharges. In some cases combined sewer systems may discharge untreated sewage during rain storms.
Chlorine is often used as a disinfectant in the form of a hypochlorite solution that is injected to the water system.
• Effective against free bacteria floating in the water
• Low life cycle cost
• Smell and taste of the water is affected
• Sensitive to pH-value of the water. At levels above 7,5 the disinfection effect is reduced
• Long term effect on bacteria is limited
• Biofilm in hot water tank and pipes are medium affected


text:
Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc.
B-403538.8,B-403538.9: Sep 26, 2012
Additional Materials:
- Full Report:
(202) 512-4803
Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc. protests the United States Marshals Service's award of eleven separate contracts to Akal Security, Inc. to provide court security officers (CSO) for federal judicial circuits 1-3 and 5-12 under request for proposals (RFP) No. DJMS-10-R-0022.
We deny the protest.
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release.
Matter of: Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc.
File: B-403538.8; B-403538.9
Date: January 10, 2012
Neil H. ODonnell, Esq., Allan J. Joseph, Esq., Aaron P. Silberman, Esq., Thomas D. Blanford, Esq., Walter S. Chen, Esq., Lauren B. Kramer, Esq., and Dennis J. Callahan, Esq., Rogers Joseph ODonnell, PLC, for the protester.
Terrence M. OConnor, Esq., Seth C. Berenzweig, Esq., John W. Polk, Esq., Stephanie D. Wilson, Esq., and Kathryn M. Lipp, Esq., Berenzweig Leonard, LLP, for Akal Security, Inc., the intervenor.
C. Joseph Carroll, Esq., United States Marshals Service, for the agency.
Cherie J. Owen, Esq., and Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
Protest challenging agencys evaluation of proposals and the best value source selection is denied, where the record reflects that the evaluation and source selection were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation.
Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc. protests the United States Marshals Services award of eleven separate contracts to Akal Security, Inc. to provide court security officers (CSO) for federal judicial circuits 1-3 and 5-12 under request for proposals (RFP) No. DJMS-10-R-0022.
We deny the protest.
The Judicial Security Division of the Marshals Service is responsible for ensuring the safety of all federal courts and court employees in the United States and its territories against unauthorized, illegal, and potentially life-threatening activities. Agency Report (AR), Tab 14, Source Selection Plan, at 2. As part of this responsibility, the Marshals Service, through the RFP here, sought proposals to provide CSOs for 12 federal judicial circuits. The CSOs were to provide services such as entrance control (including operating security screening equipment); roving patrol; stationary post assignments; escort services for judges, court personnel, jurors, or other designated individuals; parking and pedestrian control; and maintaining law and order. AR, Tab 2, RFP amend. 1, at C-6 to C-8.
The CSOs were to meet certain minimum qualification, performance, and training standards set forth in the RFP. AR, Tab 2, RFP amend. 1, at C-17 to C-39. Among these, CSOs have to possess at least three years of verifiable prior experience as a certified law enforcement officer, or its military equivalent, with general arrest authority,[1] id. at C-18, undergo a background investigation, id. at C-17, and undergo at least eight hours of training annually that was developed and conducted by the offeror, id. at C-25. The RFP also contained weapons proficiency standards that require contractors to test each CSO annually.[2] Id. at C-38 to C-39. In addition, CSOs have to undergo medical examinations as part of the overall clearance process, and they must be physically fit to meet all physical and performance requirements of the contract. Id. at C-25, C-35.
The solicitation contemplated award of separate contracts for each of the 12 federal judicial circuits for a 12-month base period, with four 12-month option periods. AR, Tab 9, RFP amend. 9, at 2. The total value of the procurement for all circuits is $1.7 billion. Agency Report (AR), Tab 37a, Source Selection Recommendation Memorandum (SSRM), at 2. The RFP informed offerors that evaluation would be conducted on a best value basis, considering the following factors: technical ability to perform the statement of work, contract management, past performance, and price. AR, Tab 2, RFP amend. 1, at M-1. The solicitation further stated that technical merit was considered to be more important than price, but not significantly so. AR, Tab 2, RFP amend. 1, at M-1.
The RFP informed offerors that the non-price factors were worth a possible 100 points in the evaluation. AR, Tab 4, RFP amend. 4, at 3. In this regard, the technical factor was worth 65 points and had four subfactors: general understanding of the statement of work (SOW) (20 points), ability to recruit and furnish qualified applicants (15 points), ability to maintain required CSO standards (15 points), and develop and conduct annual training and weapons proficiency (15 points). Id. The contract management factor was worth a total of 15 points and had two subfactors: qualifications of key personnel (5 points), and corporate experience (10 points). The past performance factor was worth 20 points. Id.
The RFP also provided that the total evaluated price would be the determining factor for award among proposals that were considered substantially technically equal. That is, where the agency determined that the technical capabilities of each offeror were not significantly different among competing proposals, then the proposal with the lowest evaluated price would be selected for award. Id. If the agency determined that there were significant technical differences among competing proposals for each circuit, then a more expensive proposal could be selected for award, if the agency determined that the value of the selected proposal was worth the price differential. Id.
In response to the RFP, the agency received 26 proposals, including from Akal and Inter-Con. AR, Tab 37a, SSRM, at 2. Both offerors proposed for all 12 federal judicial circuits.[3] Id. at 12.
The technical evaluation board (TEB) met to evaluate proposals under the technical and contract management evaluation factors, and the chief of the agencys Office of Security Contracts conducted an evaluation of the offerors past performance. As a result of these evaluations, the following point scores were assigned to the proposals submitted by Akal and Inter-Con:
General understanding of the SOW (20 points)
Ability to recruit and furnish qualified applicants (15 points)
Ability to maintain required CSO standards (15 points)
Develop and conduct annual training and weapons proficiency (15 points)
Contract Management
Qualifications of key personnel (5 points)
Corporate experience (10 points)
Past Performance
AR, Tab 37b, Revised Final TEB Report, at 3; AR, Tab 37d, Past Performance Comparative Assessment, at 1.
In a detailed evaluation report, the TEB discussed in detail the basis for its evaluation scores, identifying strengths and weaknesses in each offerors approach under the technical and contract management factors and subfactors. The TEB chair then performed a comparative analysis of proposals, again noting discriminating strengths and weakness of each proposal. Based on this analysis, the TEB chair concluded that Akals proposal was technically substantially better than Inter-Cons proposal. AR, Tab 37c, Comparative Analysis of Technical Proposals, at 2. In support of this conclusion, the TEB chair explained that Akals proposal contained several unmatched strengths and added value items that were not contained in Inter-Cons proposal and which provided a significant benefit to the government. E.g., id. at 2-4.
For example, the TEB chair determined that Akal demonstrated a slightly better understanding of the SOW, and its proposal included no-cost value added items in the areas of [deleted] and [deleted] that did not appear in Inter-Cons proposal. For example, Akal proposed to: [deleted];[4] [deleted]. Id. at 3-4. As a result, the TEB chair concluded that Akals proposal was substantially better than Inter-Cons under the ability to maintain required CSO standards, and develop and conduct annual training and weapons proficiency subfactors.[5]
In evaluating past performance, the agency solicited past performance evaluations from judicial security inspectors in all circuits. The agency received 68 evaluations of Akal for the eight circuits in which it was the incumbent, and 9 evaluations of Inter-Con for the two circuits in which it was the incumbent. AR, Tab 37d, Comparative Assessment of Past Performance. The agency evaluator averaged these ratings to come up with the score assigned to each proposal under the past performance factor.[6] The agency also sought information from the past performance information retrieval systems (PPIRS) electronic database to determine that there were no grossly negative past performance issues, and also considered offerors responses to adverse past performance. Id. at 1. Based on all of this information, the agency evaluator prepared a comparative assessment of the offerors past performance for the SSA to use in making the source selection decision. AR, Tab 37d, Comparative Assessment of Past Performance.
The past performance comparative assessment stated that Akals average past performance rating was 15.5 points out of a possible 20, and Inter-Cons average rating was 16.7. Id. at 1. The agency evaluator noted that Inter-Con benefited by high ratings from references external to the Marshals Service, but that Akal received more favorable internal reference ratings. The assessment recognized that, because the number of internal (Marshals Service) past performance ratings for Akal greatly exceeded the number of responses received for Inter-Con, Akal received more negative and positive comments than did Inter-Con. However, the agency evaluator also recognized that both firms received excellent ratings for overall customer service, with some scoring inconsistencies for specific survey questions. Based on his consideration of all of the available information, the agency evaluator concluded that the past performance of Akal and Inter-Con was substantially equal. Id. at 1.
The contracting officer took the various analyses that had been performed and prepared an eighteen-page SSRM for the source selection authoritys (SSA) consideration. This SSRM provided the SSA with a comparative assessment of proposals under the technical, contract management, past performance, and price factors; and included the contracting officers source selection recommendation.[7] AR, Tab 37a, SSRM. The SSRM recommended award to Akal based on the contracting officers conclusion that Akals proposals offered substantial technical superiority and very small price differences in Circuits 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12, and technical superiority and [a] lower price in Circuit 8. AR, Tab 37a, SSRM, at 18.
The SSA considered all of the documents and information presented to him, and also consulted with the TEB to probe its conclusions. AR, Tab 38, Source Selection Decision, at 1. Based on this, the SSA concurred with the proposed awards to Akal. In support of this determination, the SSA identified four value added items that distinguished Akals proposal from the other offerors proposals: [deleted][8] and [deleted]. Id. at 1-2. The SSA stated that, in his opinion, the [deleted], by itself, would justify the slightly higher price of Akals proposal. Id. at 2-3. The SSA concluded that this benefit was a crucial, potentially life-saving enhancement that even if it were the only technical advantage of Akals proposal over Inter-Con, it would justify the award of the contracts to Akal, despite the small price premium associated with that firms proposal. Id. at 3-4.
The agency made award to Akal and this protest followed.
Inter-Con challenges various aspects of the agencys technical, past performance, and price evaluation, and alleges that the agencys source selection decision was unreasonable.
As a general matter, the evaluation of proposals is a matter within the agencys discretion. U.S. Textiles, Inc., B-289685.3, Dec. 19, 2002, 2002 CPD ¶ 218 at 2. In reviewing protests challenging an agencys evaluation and source selection, our Office will not reevaluate proposals; rather, we will examine the record to determine only whether the agency acted reasonably and in accord with the solicitations evaluation criteria and applicable procurement statutes and regulations. Ahtna Facility Servs., Inc., B-404913, B-404913.2, June 30, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 134 at 7. Our Office affords particular deference to the technical expertise of agency personnel regarding judgments that involve matters of human life and safety. PEMCO World Air Servs., B-284240.3 et al., Mar. 27, 2000, 2000 CPD ¶ 71 at 7. A protesters mere disagreement with the agencys judgments does not render the evaluation unreasonable. SDS Intl, Inc., B-291183.4, B-291183.5, Apr. 28, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 127 at 6.
As a part of our consideration of Inter-Cons protest, we have reviewed the pleadings, the evaluation materials, and the proposals submitted by Inter-Con and Akal. While we do not discuss each of the protesters numerous arguments, we have considered them all and find them to be without merit. We address a few of these arguments below.
Technical Evaluation
Inter-Con protests the evaluation of its proposal under each of the technical subfactors. Among other things, Inter-Con challenges the SSAs determination that Akals proposal was superior for providing [deleted]; [deleted]; [deleted]; and [deleted]. Inter-Con also contends that the agency did not meaningfully evaluate the most heavily-weighted technical subfactor (general understanding of the SOW), and failed to consider past performance in evaluating offerors technical approaches. After reviewing the record, we find that Inter-Cons disagreement with the agencys technical evaluation, including each of the discriminating strengths that the agency assigned to Akals proposal, does not afford a basis to sustain this protest.
For example, Inter-Con challenges the agencys assignment of a strength to Akals proposal (under the technical subfactor for developing and conducting annual training and weapons proficiency) for offering to provide [deleted]. Inter-Con contends that the RFP permitted only two hours of weapons training and required that testing be conducted annually; therefore, Akals proposal to provide [deleted] should have been downgraded for failing to comply with the solicitations terms. Comments at 8-15. The protester also argues that the agency erred when it failed to credit Inter-Cons proposal with a strength for proposing to provide [deleted]. Id. at 15-18.
Based on our review of the record, we agree with the agency that Akals proposal exceeded the solicitations stated requirements by offering [deleted] instead of [deleted]. Although the protester claims that it thought the training requirements were a limit, not a minimum, the only RFP provisions that appear to support the protesters position relate to billing for training, and the agency reasonably concluded that Akals proposal did not violate the limitations on billing.[9] Consistent with the best value nature of this RFP, the agency reasonably credited Akals proposal with a strength for exceeding the solicitations stated requirements.[10] The record also reflects that the SSA reasonably evaluated Inter-Cons training approach and determined that Akals approach was superior.[11] AR, Tab 38, Source Selection Decision, at 3.
In another example, Inter-Con argues that the agency improperly considered Akals proposed [deleted] as a strength (under the technical subfactor for developing and conducting annual training and weapons proficiency), arguing that this should have been considered under the contract management subfactor for qualifications of key personnel. Since the technical subfactor was weighted more heavily than the contract management subfactor (15 points versus 5 points), the protester contends that, to the extent that the [deleted] represented a strength at all, which Inter-Con disputes, it should not have had much impact on the evaluation as a whole because it should have been considered a strength under the least important subfactor. Comments at 20-21.
In the source selection decision, the SSA stated that Akals proposal to [deleted]at no cost to the agency was a value added item that represented a strength under the technical subfactor because [deleted]. AR, Tab 37a, SSRM, at 7. Although the solicitation did not specifically require offerors to provide [deleted], it did impose technical requirements regarding CSO training, see AR, Tab 2, RFP at C-24, and we find that the [deleted] was reasonably considered as being logically related to Akals approach to CSO training.[12] See Supp. AR at 5-6. As such, we find that the agency properly considered [deleted], and assessed Akals proposal a strength for its approach, under the technical subfactor for developing and conducting annual training and weapons proficiency.
In yet another example, the protester argues that Akals proposal to provide [deleted] should not have been considered a strength under the ability to maintain required CSO standards subfactor of the technical factor. The protester contends that Akals proposed approach is nothing more than agreeing to provide the necessary staffing to comply with the solicitations requirements to provide two physicians to complete CSO medical examinations within 21 days. Id. at 27. We disagree.
The solicitation required that the offeror designate two licensed physicians for each city in a given district where CSOs are assigned. AR, Tab 2, RFP amend. 1, at C-27. These physicians would perform medical examinations of CSOs, including new applicants. Id. at C-27 to C-29. For new applicants, the examination would need to be timely completed so that a new CSO application package could be sent to the agency within 21 days. Id. at C-13. Akal proposed to provide [deleted]. AR, Tab 38, Source Selection Decision, at 2.
In his source selection decision, the SSA found that Akals approach of [deleted] was beneficial to the agency, because it provides a way to [deleted]. Id. at 2. We find the SSAs findings and conclusions in this regard to be reasonable and supported by the record. Inter-Cons disagreement with this conclusion does not provide a basis for sustaining the protest.
By way of another example, Inter-Con contends that the TEB did not meaningfully evaluate proposals under the technical subfactor for general understanding of the statement of work. Comments at 37-42. Inter-Con notes that the source selection plan contained only two general bullets for evaluating this subfactor, while the plan contained six to eight bullets for evaluating other subfactors. As a result of this lack of guidance, Inter-Con contends, the TEB performed only a superficial review of this subfactor, which resulted in an unreasonable evaluation. Comments at 37-38.
The agency argues, and we agree, that the agencys evaluation of the general understanding subfactor was reasonable. Specifically, the TEB report reflects the fact that the TEB found that Akals proposal demonstrated an extremely strong understanding and knowledge of the SOW, and evidenced a very comprehensive understanding of the security and screening posts. AR, Tab 37b, Revised Final TEB Report, at 7. The fact that the source selection plan contained fewer bullets of guidance for evaluating this technical subfactor does not establish a violation of procurement law or regulation. Simply put, the protesters arguments provide no basis for sustaining the protest. [13] See Globecomm Sys., Inc., B-405303.2, B-405303.3, Oct. 31, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 243 at 10.
Finally, Inter-Con argues that the TEB was required to consider the firms past performance in evaluating their technical approaches. Protest at 31-41, 60-62. The protester contends that, because the source selection plan stated that a rating of excellent should be assigned to proposals that offer proven approaches, technical evaluators were required to consider firms past performance in determining whether the firm had successfully implemented that approach in the past. Protest at 34. For example, under the technical subfactor for ability to maintain required CSO standards, Inter-Con contends that the agencys assignment of a rating of very good to Akals proposal was unreasonable because, if the technical evaluators had evaluated the past performance survey responses, they would have realized that Akal has had trouble in the past maintaining CSO standards, which requires a conclusion that Akals approaches under that evaluation subfactor are not proven. Protest at 60.
The agency argues, and we agree, that the RFP permitted, but did not require, the agency to consider past performance references in evaluating technical proposals. In this regard, RFP stated only that the technical evaluation may be augmented by information gathered from past performance references. See AR, Tab 2, RFP amend. 1, at M-3. Given this discretionary language, we conclude that the agency did not err in evaluating Akals proposal under the technical subfactors without regard to the results of the past performance surveys. See Martin Elecs., Inc.; AMTEC Corp., B-404197 et al., Jan. 19, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 25 at 13-14.
Past Performance
Inter-Con raises several challenges to the agencys evaluation of past performance. Among other things, the protester argues that the evaluation scale used by the agency was improper, the evaluation of Akals past performance was unreasonable, and the SSAs consideration of past performance was flawed. Comments at 54-71.
With regard to the evaluation scale, the protester complains that the agency assigned points to past performance in a manner that minimized the differences between offerors. Comments at 66-67; Protest at 89-94. Although the scale used by the agency was published in the RFP,[14] Inter-Con contends that the use of this scale was improper because it was only for use by past performance references when completing survey responses, and not for use by the agency in evaluating offerors past performance. Comments at 67. We find no merit to the protesters arguments.
Section L of the RFP informed offerors that they would be evaluated on the criteria set forth in the past performance survey form. AR, Tab 2, RFP amend. 1, at L-12. Offerors were on notice, at the time of issuance of the RFP, that the rating scale in the past performance surveys would be used, to at least some extent, to evaluate past performance. It is unclear how the protester believes that the rating scale was acceptable for use by the past performance references as an accurate portrayal of their views of the firms past performance, but when used by the agency, the same scale resulted in a skewed representation of the same information. The agencys use of the scale identified in the RFP was reasonable. This protest ground is denied.
Inter-Con also challenges the agencys evaluation of Akals past performance on several grounds, and argues that it was unreasonable for the agency to find both offerorss past performance to be substantially equal. Among other arguments, the protester complains that the agency evaluator failed to perform a qualitative review of past performance survey responses, did not make the SSA aware of (or misled the SSA concerning) problems with Akals past performance, and did not provide the SSA with a proper comparative assessment of past performance. Based on these and other arguments, the protester complains that the SSAs consideration of past performance in making the best value determination was unreasonable. Comments at 54-65, 68-71. We find no merit in these challenges.
The record confirms that a thorough and detailed qualitative review and comparative assessment of past performance was performed and provided to the SSA, and this assessment provided the SSA with a reasonably accurate portrayal of each offerors past performance. AR, Tab 37d, Comparative Assessment of Past Performance, at 1. In this regard, the comparative analysis reflects the evaluators review and analysis of past performance survey results, the offerors responses to adverse ratings, and information from the PPIRS electronic database. See id.
The comparative assessment stated that Akals average past performance rating was 15.5 points out of a possible 20 points, and Inter-Cons average rating was 16.7 points. The assessment also stated that, because the number of internal (Marshals Service) past performance ratings for Akal greatly exceeded the number of responses received for Inter-Con, Akal received more negative and positive comments than did Inter-Con. The comparative assessment informed the SSA that Akal was both praised and criticized by different judicial security inspectors when scoring the same questions. Id.
The comparative assessment also noted that one of Inter-Cons two external references rated Inter-Con as outstanding, the highest possible rating. However, since the offerors internal references were considered to be the most relevant, the comparative assessment also considered those references as a group, finding that Akal averaged 15.5, while Inter-Con averaged 15.2 when looking solely at internal references. Based on all of this, the comparative assessment concluded that the past performance of Akal and Inter-Con was substantially equal. Id. at 1.
Based on the entire record before us, we find that the SSA was sufficiently apprised of the offerors past performance. We further find that, although the SSA did not specifically discuss past performance in his source selection decision, he acted reasonably in relying on the evaluators conclusion (which is reasonable and supported by the record) that Akals and Inter-Cons past performance were substantially equal. See Pan Am World Serv., Inc., et al., B-231840 et al., Nov. 7, 1988, 88-2 CPD ¶ 446 at 22. The protesters arguments that the SSA did not properly consider past performance in making his best value decision, or that such consideration should have resulted in a different outcome, are unpersuasive. We have considered all of the protesters arguments, and none of them provide a basis to sustain this protest.
Price Evaluation
The protester contends that the SSA effectively disregarded price as an evaluation factor in making his source selection decision. Comments at 44-53. The protesters assertion is mainly based on a statement in the contracting officers SSRM:
There is no way to ascribe a dollar value to the unmatched advantages of the Akal proposal compared to the Inter-Con proposal, but it is relevant to note that in five of the ten contested circuits, the difference is less than one percent, in four circuits the difference is between one and two percent, and the largest difference [is] 2.25 [percent]. Additionally, it is my understanding that price for the CSO program is largely driven by Collective Bargaining Agreements that are not fully negotiated for the later years thus even further lessening confidence in a price based decision.
AR, Tab 37a, SSRM, at 13-14; see Comments at 45. Inter-Con argues that in evaluating price, the agency should have focused on the price difference in only the discretionary portion of the price that was not set by collective bargaining agreements that were incorporated into the RFP. Comments at 46, 48-53. Inter-Con argues that it had a [deleted] percent price advantage in the discretionary portion of the prices, which the agency unreasonably disregarded in making its award decision. Id. at 48.
The RFP here informed offerors that for award purposes, the agency would evaluate each circuit and the offerors overall prices for the base period and its option periods. AR, Tab 2, RFP amend. 1, at M-2. The protesters argument that the agency should have disregarded the solicitations language and instead considered only the discretionary portion of the prices flies in the face of the clear requirements of the RFP. This protest ground is denied.
Best Value Tradeoff Decision
Inter-Con argues that the best value tradeoff decision is flawed because the SSA relied on a variety of mistakes in the underlying evaluation, many of which are discussed above in this decision. Supp. Comments at 53-54. As discussed above, the protesters numerous protest arguments are without merit and do not establish that the evaluation was unreasonable or inconsistent with the solicitation.
The record here confirms that the SSA performed a comprehensive analysis in reaching his best value decision. The SSA received and reviewed a lengthy and detailed SSRM prepared by the contracting officer which contained a comparative analysis of the technical proposals, a summary of the past performance comparative analysis, a price comparison, and source selection recommendations. AR, Tab 37a, SSRM. The SSA also received and reviewed the TEBs final revised report, a comparative analysis of the technical proposals prepared by the TEB chair, a comparative assessment of past performance, and a chart summarizing the comparative analysis of technical proposals.[15] AR, Tabs 37b-37e.
The record shows that, consistent with the evaluation criteria, the SSA fully considered technical discriminators, as well as the price differences between the two proposals, and reasonably determined that the technical superiority of Akals proposal was worth the price premiums that ranged from 0.14 percent to 2.25 percent in each circuit. AR, Tab 38, Source Selection Decision, at 4. We find that the SSAs tradeoff decision was reasonable.[16]
The protest is denied.
Lynn H. Gibson
General Counsel
[1] The CSOs are deputized by the Marshals Service. AR, Tab 2, RFP amend. 1, at C-10.
[2] New hires were required to be tested and certified prior to beginning duty.
[3] Each offeror submitted one proposal for all circuits, with separate pricing for each circuit. In all protested circuits except the 8th, Inter-Cons proposals offered a price advantage ranging from 0.14 percent to 2.25 percent. AR, Tab 37a, SSRM, at 12. For the 8th Circuit, Akals proposal offered a price advantage of 0.08 percent. Id.
[4] In contrast, Inter-Con offered to [deleted]. AR, Tab 37b, Revised Final TEB Report, at 15.
[5] The TEB chair found Akals and Inter-Cons proposals to be substantially equal under the ability to recruit and furnish qualified applicants, qualifications of key personnel, and corporate experience subfactors. AR, Tab 37c, Comparative Analysis of Technical Proposals, at 3, 5.
[6] Before averaging the scores, the agency evaluator changed the rating scores given by the references when the scores were inconsistent with the narrative response provided by the reference. AR, Tab 26, Memorandum to File re: Past Performance Supplemental, at 1. The agency evaluator also upwardly adjusted several of the offerors lower past performance scores after giving the firms an opportunity to address the adverse scores and reviewing their responses. See, e.g., AR, Tab 21e, Akal Past Performance Surveys, at 4; AR, Tab 21e, Akal Past Performance Surveys, at 4; AR, Tab 23a, Inter-Con Past Performance Surveys, at 2.
[7] Attached to the SSRM were the TEBs final revised report, a comparative analysis of proposals prepared by the TEB chair, a comparative assessment of past performance, and a summary chart of the various analyses. AR, Tabs 37b-37e.
[8] As part of his analysis, the SSA conducted a conference call with the members of the TEB. The SSAs selection decision documents that, during the call, one of the members of the TEB (who is a Deputy U.S. Marshal, a professional law enforcement officer, and a firearms instructor) stated that Akals offer of [deleted] would provide a technical and tactical benefit. The Marshals professional opinion was that the [deleted] would [deleted]. AR, Tab 38, Source Selection Decision, at 3. Therefore, the Marshal stated that this benefit would enhance the security of the judiciary, the court family, the public, and the CSOs themselves. Id.
[9] The protester argues that Akals proposal of additional training violates the RFPs statement that offerors could bill for only two hours of weapons qualification and training. However, we note that Akals proposal offered the option of providing the [deleted]. AR, Tab 15, Akals proposal, at 1-63. Further, the TEB Chair stated that the agency read Akals offer to [deleted] to mean that [deleted]. Declaration of TEB Chair, at ¶ 5.
[10] In another example, Inter-Con also contends that the agency unreasonably failed to award its proposal a strength for proposing to provide [deleted], in contrast to Akals proposal, which provides for [deleted]. Comments at 23. Inter-Con submitted a sworn statement of a consultant stating that, in his opinion, [deleted] is superior and should have been considered a strength. Comments, Consultant Decl., at 2-3. We have considered the consultants opinion, along with the entirety of the record, and find no basis to second guess the agencys determination that Akals proposal was technically superior to Inter-Cons proposal.
[11] As noted above, the agency found that Inter-Cons proposed additional training was only for [deleted], which offers a more limited benefit to the government than Akals proposal to provide [deleted]. AR, Tab 38, Source Selection Decision, at 3.
[12] An agency may consider matters that are reasonably and logically related to, or encompassed within, the stated factors. See, e.g., ORI Servs. Corp., B-261225, July 28, 1995, 95-2 CPD ¶ 55 at 2-3; Avogadro Energy Sys., B-244106, Sept. 9, 1991, 91-2 CPD ¶ 229 at 4.
[13] The protester also contends that the SSA disregarded the general understanding of the SOW subfactor when making the source selection decision. However, the record shows that the agency reasonably determined that Inter-Cons and Akals proposals were substantially equal under this subfactor. Accordingly, in the SSAs source selection decision, the SSA properly focused on the subfactors where proposals were not equal. See Smiths Detection, Inc.; Am. Science & Engg, Inc., B-402168.4 et al., Feb. 9, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 39 at 16 (a source selection authority, in making a tradeoff analysis, may ultimately focus on a particular discriminator, even if it is not the most heavily weighted factor).
[14] The RFP informed offerors that past performance surveys would request that references rate past performance using the following point scores: 0 points--unsatisfactory; 1 point--poor; 2 points--fair; 3 points--good; 4 points--excellent; 5 points--outstanding. AR, Tab 2, RFP amend. 1, attach. 1(F), at 1.
[15] Given the detail of the agencys evaluation documents and the comparative assessment of the proposals presented to and reviewed by the SSA, we cannot agree with the protester that by adopting the boards findings and the contracting officers recommendations, the SSA failed to exercise his independent judgment in the source selection. The SSA here reasonably exercised his judgment based on his review of the agency evaluators findings and recommendations. See Foresight Science & Tech., Inc. B-297910.2, B-297910.3, Nov. 30, 2006, 2006 CPD ¶ 187 at 6 n.8.
[16] Inter-Cons protest included a copy of a poem that the protesters counsel states was anonymously mailed to him, and which the protester contends constitutes evidence of impropriety. The SSA submitted a signed declaration stating that the first time he ever saw the poem was after the current protest was filed; he is not the author of the poem, nor does he know who the author is; the poem does not accurately represent his role in the procurement process or his independent assessment of proposals; his independent assessment and the basis for his award decisions are contained in the source selection decision memorandum; and he stands firmly and resolutely behind his source selection. AR, Tab 39, Declaration of Source Selection Authority, Oct. 24, 2011 at 1-2. Further, the agency states that a copy of this correspondence has been referred to the agencys Office of Inspection and the Department of Justices Office of Inspector General for appropriate action. AR at 22 n.2. The anonymous poem does not provide a basis for sustaining the protest.
Sep 17, 2020
Sep 16, 2020
Sumaria Systems, Inc.
We deny the protest.
We deny the protest.
Sep 15, 2020
CenturyLink QGS
We deny the protest.
Patronus Systems, Inc.
We sustain the protest.
Sep 11, 2020
Looking for more? Browse all our products here